Well the environments that surround certain economic classes are influenced by their spending, so I disagree that they somehow differ. We've both been outside military bases and sure you weren't 'wealthy' growing up just like I wasn't, so I would bet we are more familiar with that kind of sphere.
Well PP/abortions can be argued that they encourage a lack of personal responsibility and I agree to that partially, but I don't think the alternative is better. Shitty unintended consequences, I imagine.
Not entirely sure what the last paragraph has in reference to PP, but it seems the larger problem you have here is a lack of education for one to "advance" out of this "parallel world in which PP thrives", which PP does provide. Maybe i'm missing something here?
I didn't grow up wealthy or even middle class really (unless handmedowns and walmart clothes and a couple of new toys only at bday/xmas count), but we still didn't frequent that parallel terrain. There is a lack of an education on how to advance out of that world, and there's a lack of want to at a certain level, but the hoopla around these services is misguided on both ends. PPs existence is more a symptom of deeper problems than a central pillar of a big gov/corp edifice, but it isn't lifting anyone up either.
To no one in particular:
Planned Parenthood doesn't use federal funding to provide abortions, so an abortion through them isn't on the cheap; the patient has to pay the full amount, or go through an insurance provider.
The federal funds go to providing things like contraceptives, which help prevent abortions. If Planned Parenthood gets separated from its federal funds and abortions become wildly inaccessible, then you're going to have an increase in class division because families' incomes will be spread thinner.
I was going to point out that money is completely fungible, but then you said as much. Why would abortions become inaccessible if they don't get the funding for those federally? Obviously, the money isn't earmarked for that, but these earmarks don't really matter.
The conservative fantasy is basically that people who shouldn't have children or can't afford it will basically stop fucking. Abstinence kids, God's great ruse.
As far as dependency on contraceptives and other services goes... that may be true, but I think the alternative seems far worse.
Abstinence assumptions are asinine, but that has little to do with what I am talking about. Condoms are ridiculously cheap at full retail, and when you can't be bothered to even take that step on your own, can you reasonably be expected to take larger steps? To plan ahead? Etc. Besides, again, I don't think they are getting used with any regularity anyway. People don't like the feel, and so they try to rely on pullout - which can leave you needing Plan B, which is expensive. Other invasive forms of BC are no more popular (IUDs), traditional BC pills require discipline people generally lack to begin with, and shots can have all sorts of unwanted side effects. In short, nothing is stupid and/or lazy proof.
The same people who can't bother to drop a few dollars on condoms and use them consistently, are also the same people who won't remember their pills or have the money around for Plan B. I'm not saying there's an easy fix, or even an easy bandaid, but PP isn't either one.
